Polli J.W.,Glaxosmithkline |
Hussey E.,CVM MDC Clinical Pharmacology and Discovery |
Bush M.,Clinical Pharmacology Modelling and Simulation |
Generaux G.,Glaxosmithkline |
And 5 more authors.
Xenobiotica | Year: 2013
1. This work investigated the drug interaction potential of GSK1292263, a novel GPR119 agonist, with the HMG-coA reductase inhibitors simvastatin and rosuvastatin. 2. In vitro experiments assessed the inhibition of transporters and CYP enzymes by GSK1292263, and a clinical drug interaction study investigated the effect of GSK1292263 (300 mg BID) on the pharmacokinetic profile of simvastatin (40 mg single dose) and rosuvastatin (10 mg single dose). 3. In vitro, GSK1292263 demonstrated little/weak inhibition (IC50 values >30 μM) towards CYPs (CYP1A2, 2C9, 2C19, 2D6, 3A4), Pgp, OATP1B3, or OCT2. However, GSK1292263 inhibited BCRP and OATP1B1, which are transporters involved in statin disposition. 4. In the clinical study, small increases in the AUC(0-inf) of simvastatin [mean ratio (90% CI) of 1.34 (1.22, 1.48)] and rosuvastatin [mean ratio (90% CI) of 1.39 (1.30, 1.49)] were observed when co-administered with GSK1292263, which is consistent with an inhibitory effect on intestinal BCRP and CYP3A4. In contrast, GSK1292263 did not inhibit OATP1B1 based on the lack of changes in simvastatin acid exposure [mean AUC(0-inf) ratio (90% CI) of 1.05 (0.91, 1.21)]. 5. GSK1292263 has a weak drug interaction with simvastatin and rosuvastain. This study provides a mechanistic understanding of the in vivo inhibition of transporters and enzymes by GSK1292263. © 2013 Informa UK, Ltd. Source
Hu C.,Phase I Clinical Research Unit |
Jia J.,Phase I Clinical Research Unit |
Dong K.,PTS China |
Luo L.,Data Management |
And 6 more authors.
PLoS ONE | Year: 2015
Inhaled umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of inhaled UMEC with vilanterol (UMEC/VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the US and EU. This was a randomized, open-label, three-period crossover, single- and repeat-dose study to assess the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and tolerability of inhaled UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg (delivering 55/22 μg) and UMEC/VI 125/25 μg (delivering 113/22 μ g) compared with their monotherapy components (UMEC 62.5 μg, UMEC 125 μg and, VI 25 μg [delivering 55, 113, and 22 μg, respectively]) in healthy Chinese subjects (n=20). UMEC and VI were rapidly absorbed following single and repeat dosing (time to maximum plasma concentration [tmax]: UMEC = 5 min; VI = 5 min). The median tlast was 2-4 h for UMEC and 1-2 h for VI following single doses of UMEC/VI and UMEC monotherapy (both doses). UMEC reached steady-state prior to Day 10; steady-state for VI could not be assessed. UMEC accumulation following repeat dosing was 11-34% based on Cmax and 19-59% based on area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 2 h (AUC(0-2)). VI accumulation following repeat dosing was 25 -66% based on Cmax and 17-43% based on AUC(0-2). The evidence was not sufficient to suggest that systemic exposure was substantially different between UMEC/VI combination therapy and the constituent monotherapies following single or repeat dosing. Following both single- and repeat-dose administration, the inter-subject coefficient of variation for all UMEC PK parameter estimates ranged from 12% to 165% for all treatments, indicating a wide range of variability in inhaled PK parameters. Twelve subjects experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE). Six subjects experienced ≥1 treatment-related AE; the most commonly reported treatment-related AE was chest discomfort (n=3 [15%]). No clinically important changes in vital signs or electrocardiogram parameters were reported. These data suggest that single- and repeat-dose administration of UMEC/VI combination therapy in healthy Chinese subjects did not result in substantial differences in systemic exposure compared with UMEC and VI as monotherapies. © 2015 Hu et al. Source